HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/2000 - Regular (2)ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
.JOINT MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2000 -12:00 NOON
Roanoke County Administration Center
4th Floor Conference Room
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
WELCOME: Joseph P. McNamara, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
INVOCATION AND LUNCH: Supervisor H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
ROLL CALL:
1. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors .
2. Roanoke City Council
OPENING REMARKS
1. Chairman Joseph McNamara
2. Mayor Ralph Smith
REQUEST TO ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Progress report on operations at the Roanoke Regional Airport.
(Jacqueline Shuck, Executive Director and members of the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission)
RECESS: The Board of Supervisors will be in recess until 3:00 p.m. in
the Board Meeting Room.
ADJOURNMENT: Roanoke City Council
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
AT A JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA AND THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: October 10, 2000
AGENDA ITEM: Progress Report on operations at the Roanoke Regional
Airport
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
At the request of Mayor Ralph Smith and Chairman Joseph McNamara, the
members of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission and Executive Director Jacqueline
Shuck have been invited to attend the meeting to present a progress report on operations
at the Roanoke Regional Airport.
~# 4 + 4Jw' s x ~' "'9
~t ~~~ ~~~~';
~~~:
.ter
. <~:-j
.;.~J~
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Rootn 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401]-1536
Telephone: (540)853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
~~i~
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
January 10, 2000
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
~'`
Dear Ms.
The Members of the Roanoke City Council look forward to meeting with the Members of
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors on the following dates in the year 2000:
February 8 (12:00 noon) -County hosting
June 5 (12:15 p.m.) -City hosting
October 10 (12:00 noon) -County hosting
I look forward to working with you as we coordinate the meetings on behalf of our
respective governing bodies.
Sincerely,
~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Mary Allen - Re: Oct 10 meeting Page 1
From: Mary Allen
To: Susie Owen
Subject: Re: Oct 10 meeting
I'll add to the joint meeting agenda. I have calls in to Debbie Pitts and Marcia Dougherty at the
Brambleton Center to see if we can reserve the Community Room for lunch. If either one of them calls
when I'm out of the office, please ask them if the Community Room is available for lunch on Tuesday,
October 10. Tell them I'll call them with the details.
Mary Allen
»> Susie Owen 09/27/00 11:44AM »>
Mr. Hodge and Darlene Burcham invited Jacque Shuck and possibly the Airport Commission members
here on Oct. 10 for the joint meeting w/Rke City and to have lunch. I don't know how many there may be.
Elmer asked her to prepare a 10 min. presentation re. the passenger service and be ready to answer any
questions the BOS may have. Kathy Pendleton will be a contact person at the airport if you need to
speak with her. 362.1999.
Elmer said if this building couldn't accommodate all who were coming in for the meeting that day, that
perhaps it could be moved elsewhere.
Susie B. Owen, CPS
Executive Secretary to County Administrator
Roanoke County
P O Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
540.772.2004
FAX 772.2193
G ~_
L' cz-° S'
DRAFT REPORT ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE ROANOKE VALLEY
Introduction and opening remarks
Regional efforts
Phase II requirements and costs
Questions and answers
What is Phase II?
George Simpson, Roanoke County
Greg Reed, Roanoke City
Wayne Strickland, Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional
Commission
Keith Readling, Ogden Environmental and Engineering
Services
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Roanoke City
Council
When do the requirements affect Roanoke County and Roanoke City?
What do we have to do to comply?
What are the costs associated with compliance? (Initial and ongoing)
Needs assessment
Permit compliance
Revenue sources
What specifically can we do regionally?
Public education and outreach
Public participation and involvement
Watershed planning -mitigation, land use, etc.
Emergency response
Regional projects -regional detention facilities
Roanoke Regional Airport
Selected Major Air Travel Markets
Round Trip Fares as of.• 29 September 2000
#s
Destination Lowest A/P Leisure *
ROA Richmond Char/otte
Ra/eigh
RSA Best Business
Richmond Char/otte
Ra/eigh
New York, LGA $261; 5158; 5268; 5162 5786; $664; $870; 54881
Chicago 598; 5218; 5242; 5156 5822; 51,088; 5924; 5252
Atlanta 5240; 5178; 5214; 5116 5956; 5525; 5678; 5274'
Dallas/Ft. Worth 5355; 5230; 5417; 5240 51,224; 51,486; 51,236; 5568
Orlando 5338; 5210; 5182; 5128 5902; 5480; 5812; 5210
Philadelphia 5258; 5285; 5342; 5178 $764; 5664; 5812; 5468
Los Angeles 5363; 5338; 5322; 5384 51,932; 51,630; 51,802; 5618
Miami 5338; 5230; 5248; 5182 5924; 5520; 5832; 5442
Washington (DCA) 599; 599; 5218; 5158 5398; 5398; 5740; 5468
Charlotte 5238; 5198; n/a; 5238 5548; 5658; n/a; 5442
Boston 5330; 5243; 5268; 5172 5898; 5912; 5896; 53821
Houston 5348; 5240; 5407; 5254 51,110; 51,440; 51,216; 5444
Denver 5277; 5301; 5322; 5358 51,556; 51,556; 51,622; 51,318
Detroit 5292; 5282; 5340; 5206 5864; 5818; 5952; 5396
Pittsburgh 5246; 5256; 5376; 5268 5664; 5708; 5836; 5762
Ft. Lauderdale 5318; 5178; 5192; 5156 5924; 5520; 5832; 5258
Nashville 5256; 5224; 5258; 5124 5776; 5922; 5748; 5204
New Orleans 5258; 5180; 5268; 5164 5452; 5290; 5954; 5312
Hartford, CT 5277; 5271 ; 5298; 5144 5806; 5838; 5930; 5338
Cleveland 5261 ~ 5218; 5314; 5314 5722 5984. 5810. 5810
Greens°b
ro Lowest A/P Leisure * Best Business
o
t0... De/ta US
Airways AirTran De/ta US
Airways AirTran
New York, LGA 5138; $138; 5174 5898; 5842; 546
Chicago 5276; 5276; $196 51,168; 51,168; 542
Atlanta 5116; 5116; 5116 5284; 5274; 527
Dallas/Ft. Worth 5224; 5224; 5224 51,408; 51,408; 552
Orlando 5122; 5122; 5122 5344; 5344; 534
Philadelphia 5234; 5234; 5170 5846; 5846; 540
Los Angeles 5323; 5323; n/a 51,802; 51,802; n/
Miami 5172; 5172; 5172 5444; 5444; 544
Washington (DCA) n/a; 5440; n/a n/a; 5538; n/
Charlotte n/a; 5188; n/a n/a; 5306; n/
Boston 5188; 5188; 5188 51,000; 5838; 536
Houston 5234; 5234; 5234 51,236; 51,216; 556
Denver 5536; 5484; n/a 51,570; 51,570; n/
Detroit 5270; 5270; n/a 5940; 5940; n/
Pittsburgh 5278; 5238; n/a 5710; 5710; n/
Ft. Lauderdale 5182; 5182; 5182 5364; 5364; 536
Nashville 5291; 5291 ; n/a 5762; 5776; n/
New Orleans 5188; 5188; 5188 5408; 5408; 540
Hartford, CT 5170; 5208 ; n/a 51,026; 5910; n/
Cleveland 5218; 5314; n/a 5810; 5810; n/
NEWS
RELEASE
52 # 3
Rc
(~
FA
FOR IlVIMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jacqueline L. Shuck ~ _
Amanda K. Snapp ~a~
(540) 362-1999 ' - ~l
a~oar
THIRTY-EIGHTH MONTH OF CONTINUOUS INCREASE
IN PASSENGER TRAFFIC
ROANOKE, August 31, 2000 -- Total passenger traffic at the Roanoke Regional Airport
continued to show strong growth in July, recording a 5.31 % increase over the same month
last year and marking the thirty-eighth consecutive month of increasing passenger traffic at the
airport. A total of 65,655 passengers passed through the airport during the month, which
helped to boost year to date passenger totals by nearly five percent over the same period in
1999.
A strong economy, coupled with additional non-stop flights and more jet flights by the
airlines serving the Roanoke Regional Airport over the past 38 months have contributed to the
continuous increase in passenger traffic. During the past two years alone, the daily number of
jet seats departing the airport have increased by thirty-eight percent (38 %), while the total
number of all airline seats departing the airport have increased by eleven percent (11 %). At
present, fifty-three (53 %) of the 2,161 seats departing daily from the Roanoke Regional
Airport are on jet aircraft.
"The Roanoke Regional Airport Commission continues to provide the region with
quality air service," said Jacqueline L. Shuck, Executive Director of the Airport Commission.
"We are deeply appreciative that the community is supporting its local airport and contributing
to a stronger economy for this region. The increasing passenger hoardings will assist us in
making a strong case to the airlines for continued improvements in air service for the region. "
The Roanoke Regional Airport offers 94 arrivals and departures on five airlines (US
Airways, Delta Connection carriers Comair and ASA, United Express, and Northwest Airlink)
to ten nonstop and hundreds of connecting destinations every day.
###
#4
PASSENGER PROF/LE
Reason for Travel: Business Pleasure Other
(Jan. 1993 -March 2000 data) 55.10% 36.50% 8.40%
Trips per Year: 1-3 61.13%
(Jan. 1993 -March 2000 data) 4-7 16.80%
8-12 7.96%
12+ 14.11%
Major Corporate Customers: Approx Pax/Day
(Jan. 1993 -March 2000 data)
1. Virginia Tech 1 1.08
2. General Electric 7.16
3. Norfolk & Southern 6.54
4. First Union Bank 2.42
5. WestVaCo 2.21
6. ITT 1 .54
7. Carillon Health Care 1.04
Other Frequent Users:
1. Advance Auto
2. Medeco
3. Hayes, Seay, Mattern &Mattern
4. Radford University
5. Volvo/GM
Source: Roanoke Regional Airport Commission Emplacement Surveys 1993 - 2000.
I i ~"$I lyO.A..
// /` I I +rl
I I I
I
I I ~~,
4
I I I
I c I
I I I
__~. ZQ~ I I I
~~ I I I
~ j I _I
_ I _L_. ~ i
_ _ - _ _ _ I I
r ~' $m I~ i
Ip
I __ ------~ ~ ~ I i
~- -" I i
~ \\ ~~ _
----.~ •-r-.
L \ `\ ~~
°~~
'~\
5 `\ `~
~ `~
A
i
v
~• ~
o S~ o o~o~~~ ~ y "'~
v ~~y~~~~~y~~~~'
p •e ~ .e » • .e 'q ° a w
aoro=' _ ~~ S~ ~a
~v~~ ~~ _ ~"~_ ~ ~
d 0=O -. ~. O~ Q ~ f1 ~ Jr' 0
d ~ ~ N y~y G ~ 7
A W E 'P x 6 R N n\ J
7C ~ ~'p] ~ ~ .b O W ~ r-3
a io ~ ~ ~ ej ^'3 w o'
o ~
~~ a• .~o~ ; ~ o
~, .~~•
n O O (o N fpi+ ~..' ~
C O ~ _ ~ ~ .+ ~ L'
ti D y O CY ~ ro
ti q y C t~ f') ryq t'.
O .~•. N
a W b X 0 0 C O O
~^p a• C~ 7 0 X 0 0
N OQ ~ ~ 'fl ~. O ~"~ O
7 O N O O N O ~
'~,~i
O 00 O
69 69 69 69 69 69 b9 fA b9 b4 ~
~. O O O H O C R t J 0 O
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
°o °o °o°o°oo°o°OO °oo°°~
0 0 000000 00,..E
~Zm I
rz I°~
s~ I~=!
>~ Z
I ~~ !
I mA I
~~ ~
I ~
I
A
I~ I,
K
I~
I~
Im ~
Ip
o H~ I~ I
o~
x~~ I ~ r
°~~I`~
Xm~ I I
°o I ~~
6 - :~
I ,, t ~°
~I
C ~~
I I ,1
~ I I ~ ~ . ~ ~~ pm 1~ i
I/ I •~~ ~ ~pA~
' l ' U ~ 41
I 7C
~ /,
~ I ~ ~
I / ~~
l i i _ ~~''/, ~'
~LI-+ °' ~
r..l _,. N . ~ . I.. '~
L---r--
I I ~~ I I ~ ~~
' ~~ ~z~
r
r~ ~
I> ~ _
_.~ ~ I Ci
.G i ~ g --ems
i I ~ f
I o
,~ i I ~ ~
I I
I I
I ITM, .Q, ~
i ~
I t
i ~1
I I
°~ I G
I o
I ~ .P.
I
I a
I
I
I I
I
nvl'C I
I
I ~
~ ~ ~~
D ~
Z A
ro ~ m
.'0
~~
i
0
~~. _ -
Roanoke Reaional Airport Commission
Summary There are no major changes to the flight schedule this month.
The only changes are related to timing and flight numbers. The
airport's number of daily departures remained the same at 47.
Daily departing seats also remained the same at 2,161. Destina-
tions served nonstop are 10, and destinations served direct (one-
stop, same-plane) are five.
Scheduled Daily Service
Departures: Jet 15
Turboprop 32
Total 47
Destinations Served Nonstop
Daily Seats
1,149 (53.17%)
1,012 (46.83%)
2,161
Destinations Served Direct
Jet: 5 Jet: 2
Turboprop: 9 Turboprop: 5
Total : 10 Total: 5
US Airways US Airways Express made a few minor timing and flight number
changes to their schedule. Total departures remain the same at
20 each day as have daily departing seats at 1,145.
United Express Atlantic Coast Airlines made no changes to its schedule for the
month of September.
De/ta Connection ASA and Comair made a few minor timing changes, but there
were no major changes to either airline's schedule.
NW Air/ink There were no changes to Mesaba's September schedule.
Aircraft Types Jet Aircraft No. of Departures
CRJ Canadair Regional Jet 9
733 Boeing 737-300 3
73S Boeing 737-200 2
D93 McDonnell Douglas DC-9 1
TOTAL JET: 15
Turboprop Aircraft
J32 British Aerospace Jetstream 32 6
J41 British Aerospace Jetstream41 1
BE1 Beechcraft 1900D 4
DH8 DeHavilland DHC Dash-8 11
EM2 Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia 4
ATR Avions de Transport Regional 2
SF3 Saab SF340 4
TOTAL TURBO-PROP: 32
Destinations Non-Stop Jet Departures Turbop rop Departures Total
Served Atlanta 2 6 8
Charleston, WV 2 2
Charlotte 3 3 6
Chicago 3 3
Cincinnati 4 4
Detroit 3 3
Philadelphia 3 3
Pittsburgh 3 2 5
Washington Nat'I 2 2
Washington Dulles 1 1 1 1
Destinations: 10 15 32 47
One-Stop Jet Direct Turbo prop Direct Total
Charleston, WV 2 2
Detroit, MI 2 2
Cleveland 1 1
Wilmington NC 1 1
Rochester 1 _ 1
Destinations:5 2 5 7
Carrier Profi/e Airline Destination Departures Seats Eqpt•
Delta Connection Atlanta 4 120 EM2
2 128 ATR
2 100 CRJ
Cincinnati 4 200 CRJ
TOTAL: 12 548
United Express Chicago 3 150 CRJ
Washington, IAD 5 95 J32
2 58 J41
TOTAL: 10 303
US Airways Charlotte 1 126 733
2 220 73S
3 1 1 1 DH8
Pittsburgh 1 101 DC9
2 252 733
2 74 DH8
Philadelphia 3 111 DH8
Washington, DCA 2 74 DH8
Washington, IAD 4 76 BE1
TOTAL: 20 1,145
Northwest Airlink Charleston, WV 1 33 SF3
Detroit 4 132 SF3
TOTAL: 5 165
ARPT. TOTAL: 47 2,161
W NNNNNNNNNN-+'~~-+-+~'-~-~
OCOOOVOCflAWN~OCDODV OCnAWN~OCOOOVOUtA W N~
~-C)~CncnrOO~ZT.Tv~cnG~C~r'Cn-i~Zr' vvO~rOCC _v,u~~
~ ~ p (D O p~ n d N O N ~ '"' m ? ~ N O ~ fD ~ ~ N C ~. ~ m = C --I r =.
~~ v, °i`~~ aC~N ~ a-~ 'vo m ~ 3 w ~ o~ m m m m G~~ ~ O O~ o
<,~ ~ N 0 ~~ ~ O C70-rtrtrt ~O ~ n ~~~O~"On"~~?~ ~~ T ~~ ~
(D Z ~ np ~' r ~ ~ c ~ to N .3-+ 3 0 - G1 w Q 'v o d O CO
~ T~ ~ .O_. O O ~_ ~ .~ '~ ~ (D ~ O ~ + O N
"~ D~y ~' -iZ ~~OrZ~ n~ ~D~D j r'UZ D k ~ o yw
rp= DNO < O ~ Dy ~X D~ D ~ ~ °o nom;'
O : `
D ~~ ~r
y~c~~(n~~ao~- W~-nO~~-C7~~~v~~vODn2~~-Di (? ~'
X~~DX~~r~D~?rr-ZD~2•r-I OD~~U~~S~OOrDOr ~r, D
Q
,~ c
.. x, ~:. D
N -a ~ -~ ~ N N ~ (D
ANViV00(nCTtOW00 VGJVODO~--~ WON WUIWO~OW AU'rW d. ~
W OD V AN V OA00~ V cGd)~VtO-~O~OOGOOD-~~I~~OWCJ~ ~, -+~
NNOD(rOU-NA-+NUt~A(JtAOD(r-•O'CflCOONN V ODO(T1-~~1 ,; 0 TIC
W °`~ ~. a 'a O ' ~ .-0
~_a.~~~_a~~~~~~~~NNN W N ~ Tm
OOOV V V V V ODODCOCOOOO~~-~N W (JtfJtCJ~(J10DODONOW --' ~ ',° O
OOCO--~NIVCrOD~W--~ WN W V-~ W SINN-+~OD~D W (T~~OIV00 A ?,' A ~~
(fl OD00VO-~V A VOOAOVOV V VU10DNOO-~VNVOOOO t0 CD
000000000000000000000000000000 0 ~p<
~c m
~ 3
~ d~9~~9~~~~~d9~EflEfl~d9E~9d9fAEflE,969EA~d9fffE~69EA N '''` ~ ~QTI
~~~ N N N W N N N N N W W N+A W (Jt V A ~,
-+V 1D00 V CU1~ V V~IGJ-~aaGJ~ W (V CflO-~CflCflCT~~~iN~l~tfl O ~~; ACA
-+U10D NOOO-~NOONUtOCO W (J~N~If~V W W COCOU'~ODW V
N-~-+ANCflV COONS V OD W -~~NUTAOOA~CJ~(Jt W-i~~CflCfl U1 Cr,.;' ~m
A ~ ~ CT V OD .A ~ IV C7t O IV O ~ ~ OD ~! O fJt ~I CO ~ CO O tJ1 4J 1~ O CO OD Cfl '~'1,,;~d ~
N(TA V--UtV OODOOOODO) W VOCD00O-~Ut(Ji-~CO~1~ODt0 WO O ;k~~~>
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ,,, .;~.:. O
t,.. ~
~ -i
b9691~b9b9ff~H969f~{~H{~ifl~{fl(~{~9{~9ff)~9~d9{~9b9f~fA4l9 GH~i69f19Ef! E~
~ ~-~NNN_~N_N_Ns NON-~~NN~>>-+NNEfl~N_-~N_N N
..WA~~NCW000?ODO~N~cW000U0iCTANUOiCOJ1O0AODNONNC1l~ O
:',
.~
~ O
~~ ~ ~ ~ NN ~ ..a ~ ~~~ W
W ~~VAUtrA.~AO~ODA000ON~OtOOD W ~'~W W W VNCJ~N W ,?}C
N00 W~ WNCOUTANON~ODCflV V-+00O~IW 0C7~NA--CnCTA O Y"
Wd)VONWA WCJ~OAW V OJ-~AW WODNQJWCOVOOCT~OOCJ~ O
W A O W OO CO N N Cr V CO N W Cfl A (J~ Cfl N O O CT V N OO O CO OO V W V fml~, Z
;,,,
w~'^~ la<
A~~-+NN~ WN-~-~~N-+'~1~~N'~I WNUI~CJINCJI W WO N
~OCrONCOCflO0~~0Atr WOCONONN W ONCO--•OCflOOA W
A W A(nOCflO W CTO-~ODtJ~OD~IODO-+U1O~INODCJtODOD W N WO N ~at.
WNO~ W VCTt~C0O VOV-~OOWCflAAO~l~OO~NWtOW-.10~ O '£'
4
~~, N V
N -~ N -~ -~ N N -~ '~~
CJIWCOWOVO-~CJ'~COWtJ1WO-~-~WAVNCJIVA-~~V WU1C7tW W ,,:
((~~O~COOONCfl~AVO~ WCflOOCJ~(J100W NVANOV N(JtOCpO ~
AOWACflVACT~CTt0O~WONO~O-+000DODAWODNOtO-~00 OD
~.
'ti
V
-+~~NNNNNNNNNNN W W W W W W AAA~(Jt(JtU1O V CO O
V V COOOO-+-+N W Cn UtODODO~~NAO NN W O~UtON W W
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
j-+NNN--NN~NNNNNN~NNN-+-•N~N~N-~N~-~ -~
<D~<0-X0000-+<0O0COOCO-~~C~ODONOOCW OA-~ aD
W
A AWCONW V-~WA VtV~ODAQO WAODA-+V-~ COOOCflODO O
-~O(flAU~GO'AODCOC1tCflO0 WOa+~"-O~ W (J1-~COd0O0OW ODNCU (C
SE,~~~rE ~ # 7
~xcc2~TS
Comparative Air
Service
Air Fare Analysis
Prepared for
The Roanoke Regional Airport
Prepared by
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc
Aviation Consulting, Researoh and Forecasting
78 Beaver Brook Canyon Road
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
(303) 674-2000 Fax (303) 6749995
August 2000
4
II. Summary of Findings
The data and information gathered in this project point to the
following conclusions:
Air Service Levels
Overall, Roanoke Regional Airport is very well served. It has
excellent access to a wide range of connecting hubsite airports,
and, while there are some improvements that can be achieved,
there are no material shortfalls in service.
Air Fares
The fares at ROA are not out of line. That does not imply that
ROA is a "discount" airport, but fares are comparable to those at
other regional airports.
Greensboro, a much larger market, does have a wider range of
low fares that will continue to attract passengers from the ROA
service area. This disparity is driven simply by the size of the
markets. Roanoke Regional does draw on the large population
base that can support a wide range of standard-size jet service,
as can GSO. This larger population base has also attracted
AirTran, a low-fare jet carrier which also tends to depress fare
levels.
This means that there will always be "unfavorable" comparisons
In some cases, made between fares offered at ROA and those at GSO. This does
fares are not mean that fares are disproportionately high at Roanoke,
actually less only that they are typical of airports of its size. Nor does it
from Roanoke indicate a "failure" on the part of Roanoke marketing efforts.
than from
Greensboro. In some cases, fares to some major destinations from ROA are
actually lower than those offered at GSO by some of the major
carriers. While this varies almost daily, and is affected by
number of seats actually offered, it does indicate that travel on
mainline airline systems from ROA in many cases-is no more
expensive than using Greensboro.2
z This is shown in the fare comparisons in the Appendix.
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
5
Airline Service Levels
The airline service now experienced at ROA is stable. With the
exception of US Airways/United merger, there appear to be no
future shocks to the system in terms of material reductions in
service.
However, should that merger be approved, there are no
guarantees (regardless of intimations to the contrary by the
carriers involved) that service levels would be reduced. The
result of this merger would be that one carrier (United) would
dominate approximately 80% of the passenger base at ROA.
This is covered below.
Potential Additional Service
ROA is a prime candidate for nonstop service to New York.
Recent changes in slot rules at LaGuardia make small jet or
turboprop service very supportable. In addition, there is
potential for service to Memphis (Northwest Airlink), St. Louis
(TW Express), Cleveland (Continental Express) and
Raleigh/Durham (Midway).
The Effects of The ~nited/US Airways Merger
Whenever a competitor is eliminated, the net result is negative
for the consumer. In the case of ROA, the proposed merger of
United and US Airways cannot but have the result of lowering
service levels in the long run.
Because ROA is served by both the United and the US Airways
system, the combination of the two will eliminate one carrier
option and reduce competition. Furthermore, there is no
information at this time regarding how the merged carrier will
rationalize its hub feed networks or their regional airline
systems.
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
6
III. Roanoke Air Service Levels
The Boyd Group reviewed the existing service levels at Roanoke
Regional Airport. In summary, ROA has excellent air service at
the present time. This is not to say that improvements cannot be
achieved, but when compared to other airports in the region,
Roanoke is well served.
The most important factor in evaluating air service at airports
this size is connectivity -the ability to access the national and
international air transportation system. Within the hub-and-
spoke system, the higher number of connecting hubsite airports
that are accessed, generally the wider the choices for consumers.
The Roanoke Regional Airport has excellent connectivity, with
nonstop service to eight connecting hubsite airports, and access
to four major airline systems, as well as service to Washington's
Ronald Reagan National Airport, which is not a true connecting
hub airport.
Current ROA Air Service
-- ~~ _--~
Service to eight
hubsites
provides ROA
with single-
carrier access to
virtually every
city in the lower
48 United States,
as well as
numerous
international
destinations.
~'
All of the major airline systems depicted on the map are
represented in the Roanoke market by regional airline affiliates
with the exception of US Airways, which operates both mainline
and regional service at ROA.
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
As a simple example of the connectivity ROA enjoys, consumers
traveling to western destinations, for example Phoenix, Los
Angeles, and Dallas/Ft.Worth, have a choice of four airline
systems, and flight options over six connecting hubs.3
Roanoke is
provided over
2,100 average
daily departing
seats on 46
flights. 53
percent of the
departing seats
are on. jet
aircraft.
Current Service Patterns
Service patterns to the 15 top destinations noted in the
Appendix were reviewed.
As noted above, the current air service patterns at ROA provide
consumers with multiple hub and airline choices to nearly all of
the top destinations reviewed. Note that routings that are
slightly circuitous (i.e., directional back-tracking) in nature have
been included, while overtly circuitous routings have not.
Roanoke Regional Airport
Current Service to Top 15 Markets
New York 1 CC C C CC C
Atlanta 2 C NS CC C
Chicago S CC CC C C C CC NS
Detroit 4 C C NS
OrlP.ndo 5 C CC CC C CC C CC
DalLw/Ft. Worth 6 C CC C C CC CC C
Boston 7 C C C C C C
Pittsburgh 8 CC NS CC C
Loa Angeles 9 C CC C C C C CC CC
Tampa 10 C CC CC C CC ~
Miami 11 C CC CC C C CC
Charlotte 12 NS CC CC
San Francisco 13 C CC C C C C CC C
Denver 14 CC CC C CC CC C CC C
Phihidelphin 15 NS C CC C
/,ECF.ND. NS=NakbP.C=Cmnxlion,CC=Ciicnitous Co~uMCtion
The above patterns of service are highly competitive with other
airports in the region, and in the case of Huntington, far
superior.4
The Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem triad does enjoy
much higher levels of air service, both in terms of access to
additional connecting hubsites and "local O&D --service" to the
New York metropolitan area. This is simply a factor of a greater
concentration of population and business activity in the
' These are Pittsburgh (US), Atlanta (DL), Charlotte (LJS), Chicago/O'Hare (UA), Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky (DL), and DetroitlMetro (NV1~. Connectivity with someback-tracking is also available through
Washington/Dulles (UA).
`Service patterns are snapshots as of May 2000 only, and are subject to change.
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
8
"Piedmont Triad." It is not an indication of "substandard"
service at Roanoke, but instead is a function of GSO serving a
much larger population base.
Available Ca~nacity and Might ~F"requencies
As of Summer 2000, Roanoke Regional Airport offered
consumers approximately 2,104 seats on 46 average weekday
departures. Of these departures, fifteen (almost one third) were
on jet aircraft. The jet departures represent approximately 53
percent of the daily seats from ROA.5
In reviewing the service levels at other airports in the region,
ROA is not at any disadvantage. The number of departing
flights and average number of daily available seats are
illustrated in the tables that follow.
The differences in air service are generally consistent with
differences in the population bases of the primary service area of
each airport.
Average Daily Departures
80
so
40
20
0
s These data will likely shift with some volatility in the coming 12-18 months as airline systems add
and/or re-direct their fleets of small ("RJ") jet aircraft. However, airline fleet trends point to ROA moving
toward being predominantly jet-served in the next two years.
The Boyd Group/ASRC,, Inc.
Roanoke Greensboro Hurdngton Charleston LynClriurg
!Jd ~ tflProp UeWrtues
9
Average Daily Departures
50
40
30
20
10
0
Average Daily Departing Seats
7 Thousands
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
Roanoke A~eNle CFatYnooga CharMkBesiile Tri-Cakes HuMsvile
~d Departves ~T/Prap DepaAves
Roanoke Greensboro Huntinghm Charleston Lynchburg
Jet ~ TiProp
10
Average Daily Departing Seats
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
The Boyd Group then compared the basic service area
populations of each airport to the average number of departing
seats, using Roanoke as the baseline.
Air Service vs. Service Area Population
Roanoi~e Regional Airport As Baseline
Percent variance
When reviewed
based on
population
served,
Roanoke's air
service is highly
competitive with
neighboring
airports.
J1N.VA
400.0%
.............................................».._...,......._ ..._....._...__..................__..........
soo.o% --------~ ------------------------ --------------------------- ----------~---------...----------------------
zoo.o% ----------------------------- ----- -------------------------- -----------------------------
,oo.o% ---- ---~------------------------------ -------...---------
--------------------------------
o
o%
.
,oo
o%
-
.
HuMi Charleston Greensboro L chbur
Service Area Population 38.3% 11.0% 398.5% -10.9%
Departing Seats -89.4% -18.2% 197.7% -80.4%
E~Service Area Population ~DepanSng Seats
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
Roendce Ashevile Ctletiargoga C~erbl0esvile Tn-Cities Hurah~ile
,let tTlProp
11
Air Service vs. Service Area Population
Roanoke Regional .Airport As Baseline
Percent v,~r,{ance
A review of the charts illustrates that although both Huntington
and Charleston have greater populations, these markets have
fewer departing seats each day. The Piedmont Triad
International Airport in Greensboro, with an airport service
area population nearing 400 percent greater than ROA, offers
only 200 percent more seats than ROA. Lynchburg has a lesser
population and fewer departing seats. On the basis of this
chart, it is clear that Roanoke Regional Airport is receiving
adequate air service for the population base served.
The anomaly among the airports was Huntington. Although the
population served is nearly 40 percent greater than ROA, that
airport offers its service area nearly 90 percent fewer seats each
day. The Boyd Group briefly reviewed the market in an attempt
to determine if the air service (or lack thereof) at Huntington
was indicative of future events that may affect ROA.
We believe this is not the case, based on the following two
factors:
• First, Huntington is bracketed by Charleston to east and
Lexington to the west, with easy access to either city via
interstate highway. Both CRW and LEX are state
capitals, which in many cases tend to generate
The Bo~~d Group/ASRC,, Inc.
t~Service Area Population Departing Seats
12
disproportionately higher passenger enplanements per
capita than markets without a large government base. As
a result, The Boyd Group believes that airline planning
departments have decided to focus resources on these
markets, and either hope to draw traffic from Huntington
to an alternative airport or forgo that traffic altogether.
• Second, the buying power of the Huntington market is
very weak. When measured in terms of aggregate
income, median household income and per capita income,
the Huntington market is less than all of the airports
reviewed for this analysis, as well as Lexington. To
illustrate, the per capita income and median household
income in Huntington is 25 percent and 27 percent less
than Roanoke, respectively. Simply put, there may be
more people in Huntington than Roanoke, but their
ability and propensity to travel may be much less.
Conclusions
As the preceding pages clearly show, the Roanoke Regional
Airport is in a strong position when it comes to levels of air
service. The market has competitive service to multiple hubsites
and a respectable percentage of jet departures.
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
13
IV. Ambient Fare Levels At ROA
The Boyd Group reviewed fares at ROA to the same 15 top
markets. We then compared these fares to those charged at the
other airports in the region.
It should be understood that there are dozens of airline fare
levels. These change almost moment to moment, and it is not
possible to make an exact comparison between airports. This is
because there are differences in market size, aircraft used, and
airline strategies.
However, general and meaningful comparisons can be made. To
this end, a review of fares used generally by business and
leisure travelers was conducted.
The tables giving the fares in each category and market are in
the Appendix of this document.
Business Fares: 3 Day Advance Purchase
Business travelers typically make reservations closer to
departure date than do leisure travelers. In every market, there
is usually a "walk-up" fare representing the price charged for
passengers who book travel and buy the ticket on the day of
departure. In most cases, this "walk-up" fare is exceedingly
high.
But most business travelers do have a few days' advance notice -
very few discover that travel will be necessary only the day
before, or on the day of, travel. Therefore, to be realistic, we
checked fare levels three days out from the travel date, and
compared the prices between the airports in the region. Of
course, the fares in this case were still not by any means "low"
and in some cases may not differ materially from the "walk-up"
rates.
But this category of published fares does provide ~-good gauge of
overall prices charged to business travelers. Fares were quoted
three days before travel, with weekday flights and on a one-way
basis. Depending on the market, some of these fares may have
restrictions on refunds and itinerary changes, but most do not.
The Boyd Group/ASftC, Inc.
14
Fares are compared as an average of the 15 markets, and are
expressed on acents-charged-per-mile ("yield") basis. In this
analysis, the fares were expressed with tax, but not PFC or
segment charges.s
6 Note that the term "yield" in the airline industry expresses cents per mile without tax. For ease of
understanding, the cents per mile data in this document includes tax to reflect the amount the passenger
would actually pay, less PFC and segment chazges.
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
15
Fare Overview Comparison
One-way, 3-day Advance Purchase
5,.,00
Business fares
at ROA are very
comparable, or ~~~
below, those of
other cities in
the region. m.6oo
Much larger
Greensboro has ~~
benefit of
AirTran jets to
suppress fare
levels, 50-500
Fare Overview Comparison
One-way, 3-day Advance Purchase
5,.,00
50.950
50.900
50.650
50.500
Roanoke Asheville Hunstville Charlottesville Tri-Cities Chattanooga
Here, ROA is found to be very competitive with its neighbors.
The one market with a significantly lower average fare is
Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem. This is attributable to
The Bog~d Group/ASRC, Inc.
Roanoke Huntington Charleston Lynchburg Greensboro
16
Roanoke is
highly
competitive with
other regional
airports,
including GSO,
when it comes to
leisure fares.
low-fare carrier AirTran Airways, which offers service to nine of
the top 15 markets through its hub in ATL.
Nevertheless, excluding GSO because of the much higher
population and service levels, the chart illustrates that Roanoke
compares very favorably with other airports in the region when
in comes to fares most often paid by business travelers.
Leisure Fares: 2-Week Advance Purchase with Saturday-
Night Stay
The quoted fares in this comparison typically meet the
requirements of leisure travelers, and tend to represent some of
the lowest fares in any given market, although the actual lowest
fare can vary due to several factors.
These fares represent restrictions on purchase and use. Such
factors include day of travel, availability restrictions, non-
refundability, and penalties for changes.
Fare Overview Comparison
14-day Advance Purchase with Saturday Night Stay
Average YeW (cerRS per mik)
m.~
so.,oo
~.~
so.zoo
;0.269 ;0.268
50.252
;0.237 ;0.238
Roanoke Huntington Charleston Lynchburg Greensboro
The Bo~•d Group/ASRC, Inc.
17
Fare Overview Comparison
14--day Advance Purchase with Saturday Night Stay
Average Weld (oats per mle)
10.500
E0.100
Eo.3oo
so.zao
SOA62
50.372
50.325 50.329
50.318
S0.2li2
Roanoke Asheville Huntsville Charlottesville Tri-Cities Chattanooga
As with fares paid by business travelers, the analysis shows
that Roanoke offers leisure travelers highly competitive fares to
these key markets.
It is also significant to note that the fare advantage enjoyed in
the GSO market by business travelers is not as pronounced
when reviewing leisure fares.
It must be remembered, also, that the number of seats made
available will tend to be less where smaller aircraft are used.
The 50-seat jets from ROA to ATL, for example, will likely offer
fewer discount seats than the AirTran DC-9 between GSO and
ATL. The result is that the discount fares may sell out more
quickly in a smaller market. Again, this is a function of the
market size -larger airports can support larger aircraft.
Conclusions
In summary, Roanoke Regional Airport offers its service area
fares that are comparable, and in some cases better, than other
surrounding airports. Note that this does not mean that the
market is typified by super-low discount fares. But relative to
the compared markets, ROA is within roughly one-cent per mile
The Bo~~d Group/ASRC., Inc.
18
for both business and leisure fares. As noted, the only exception
to this is business fares from Piedmont ~iad International
Airport to markets served by low-fare carrier AirTran Airways.
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
`
~ ~
<
~
^ ~ r ~
m v D
'
~ ~ N ~
~ ~
u~ ~ _ ~
~ u~ ~ ~ r
2
M ~ ~$
~
~
~ gg
'd
~ v
~ z
~~ y
b
`o ~
m ~
~ z
o
~ ~ a
'
L o
~ ad
~ _><
~
0 goo ~ g
U ~
~° ~_
~ ~
~ t
LL ~
~ ~
^ ~.
o
~
~~ OLL
O Q ~ ~
/~ O ~ 2
J ~ ~ ~~
~ o a
a
o ~ ~ _
'
O ~ ~ tp e
'
N (`~
~ ~ ~
0 R `<
Q ~ ~ o f
W
~ ~
~ 0 LL
O
A
O .
j
O
O ~ r.
`~
N ~ ~
~~
`1J ',
/~t~
V~ ~
~ o
N
~ ~ ~
~
r
~ ~
~ f .
~LL
Q
~ ~ °' ~ ~
~ ~' Z
~~ ~
~n ~ m ~
~~ O
r a
ao ~ ' g
u°~ vii ~ ~
in m o ~
LL
t ~
p
AO a